Health information technology implementation - impacts and policy considerations: a comparison between Israel and Portugal

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

David Chinitz⁴  Orly Toren²  Rita Veloso Mendes¹  Rita Espanha³  Gabriel Catan⁴ 

[1] CIES-IUL and Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal;Hadassah Medical Organization, Jerusalem, Israel;ISCTE-IUL (University Institute of Lisbon), Lisbon, Portugal;Braun School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

关键词: Patient empowerment;    Health policies;    mHealth;    eHealth;    ICT;   

Others  :  1223852
DOI  :  10.1186/s13584-015-0040-9

 received in 2014-10-28, accepted in 2015-06-11,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

The use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in health systems is increasing worldwide. While it is assumed that ICT holds great potential to make health services more efficient and grant patients more empowerment, research on these trends is at an early stage. Building on a study of the impact of ICT on physicians and patients in Israel, a Short Term Scientific Mission (STSM) sponsored by COST Net in conjunction with CIES/ISCTE IUL (Portugal) facilitated a comparison of ICT in health in Israel and Portugal. The comparison focused on patient empowerment, physician behavior and the role of government in implementing ICT.

The research in both countries was qualitative in nature. In-depth interviews with the Ministry of Health (MOH), the private sector, patients associations, health plans and researchers were used to collect data. Purposeful sampling was used to select respondents, and secondary sources were used for triangulation.

The findings indicate that respondents in both countries feel that patient empowerment has indeed been furthered by introduction of ICT. Regarding physicians, in both countries ICT is seen as providing more information that can be used in medical decision making. Increased access of patients to web-based medical information can strengthen the role of patients in decision making and improve the physician-patient relationship, but also shift the latter in ways that may require adjustments in physician orientation. Physician uptake of ICT in both countries involves overcoming certain barriers, such as resistance to change. At the national level, important differences were found between the two countries. While in Israel, ICT was promoted and adopted by the meso level of the health system, in particular the health plans and government intervention can be found in a later stage, in Portugal the government was the main developer and national strategies were built from the beginning. These two approaches present different advantages and disadvantages. Government involvement in earlier stages could provide benefit in terms of interoperability of systems between different healthcare organizations. However, innovation could be slowed down due to government bureaucracy or lack of leadership.

The work provides information in order to understand and improve ICT services. Additionally, it provides input regarding impact of ICT on the physician/patient relationship and national policies in the area.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Catan et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]ITU. “The world in 2014: Facts and Figures”. International Telecommunications Union; 2014 [http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf] (Accessed on 19/03/2015)
• [2]“Crossing the Quality Chasm-a New Health System for the 21th Century”. National Academy Press, Washington; 2008.
• [3]“Towards the development of a mHealth strategy: A literature review”. World Health Organization & the Earth Institute, Columbia University; 2009.
• [4]Mendes RV. “O Papel das Tecnologias da Informação e Comunicação no sector (da reforma) da saúde em Portugal”. CIES/ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon; 2012.
• [5]NIHP. “The Health System in the Digital Age”. 11° Dead Sea Conference, 27–26 May 2010.. The Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research; Israel; 2010. (In Hebrew)
• [6]Hsiao C-J, Hing E. “Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001–2013”. NCHS data brief, no 143. National Center for Health Statistics, United States, Hyattsville; 2014.
• [7]Catan G. “Towards an eHealth Policy: A descriptive and analytical study of the utilization of Information & Communication Technology in the Israeli Community health care delivery system”. Thesis work for the Master in Public Health. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel; 2013.
• [8]Ash N, Gamzu R. “Working Meeting of the OECD on the topic of comparative measures in the adoption of information and communication technologies and their application in the health system”. HaRefua. 2012; 15:151.
• [9]Barros PP, Machado SR, Almeida SJ. “Health Systems in Transition: Portugal”. European Observatory on Health Systems, Copenhagen; 2011.
• [10]Rocha Á. “Health Informatics in Europe-The Portuguese Case”. CSREA EE. 2009; 261:264.
• [11]Gomes P, Lapão LV. The role of a nation-wide information system in improving the access to surgery in Portugal”. MIE. 2009; 71:75.
• [12]IUTICH-“Inquérito à Utilização de Tecnologias da Informação e da Comunicação nos Hospitais”. Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Portugal; 2014.
• [13]Kaye R, Kukia E, Shalev V, Idar D, Chinitz D. Barriers and success factors in Health Information Technology: a Practitioner’s Perspective. J Manag Market Health Care. 2010; 3(2):163-75.
• [14]Catan G, Espanha R, Veloso Mendes R, Toren O, Chinitz D. “The Impact of eHealth and mHealth on doctor behavior and patient involvement: an Israeli and Portuguese comparative approach”. In “Digital Healthcare Empowering Europeans”, In R. Cornet et al. (Eds.) – MIE 2015 Conference Proceedings, p. 813–817. European Federation for Medical Informatics; 2015
• [15]Ulin PR, Robinson ET, Tolley EE. “Qualitative methods in public health: a field guide for applied research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco; 2005.
• [16]Groenewald T. “A phenomenological research design illustrated”. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1). Article 4; 2004. (Accessed on 24/07/2013) [http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf]
• [17]Stauss A, Korbin J. Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Sage, London; 1998.
• [18]Espanha R, Veloso Mendes R, Brito Fonseca R, Correia T. “Os portugueses, a saúde e a Internet”. Lisbon, Portugal: CIES-IUL; 2012.
• [19]What is Patient-Centered Healthcare? A Review of definitions and principles”. International Alliance of Patient’s Organizations, United Kingdom; 2007.
• [20]“Health Promotion Glossary”. World Health Organization, Genève; 1998.
• [21]WHO. “Guidance on Engaging Patients and Patient Organizations in Hand Hygiene Initiatives”. World Health Organization; 2009 (Accessed on 25/01/2011) http://www.who.int/entity/gpsc/5may/Guidance_Organizations.doc
• [22]Kleine D. “ICT4 What? – Using the Choice Framework to operationalize the Capability Approach to Development”. IEEE/ACM ICTD, No 86; 2009. [http://www.gg.rhul.ac.uk/kleine/ICTD2009_KLEINE.pdf]
• [23]McAlearney AS, Chisolm DJ, Schweikhart S, Medow MA, Kelleher K. The story behind the story: physician skepticism about relying on clinical information technologies to reduce medical errors. Int J Med Inform. 2007; 76:836-42.
• [24]Espanha R. “Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação na Saúde”, in Jorge Simões (coord.), 30 anos do Serviço Nacional de Saúde-Um percurso comentado. Almedinañ, Coimbra; 2010.
• [25]Espanha R. “Saude e Comunicacao numa Sociedade em Rede – o caso portugués”. Lisboa, Portugal; 2009.
• [26]da Costa Pereira A, Giest S, Dumortier J, Artmann J. “Country Brief: Portugal”, eHealth Strategies. Bonn, Brussels: European Commission; 2010.
• [27]“Atlas eHealth country profiles: based on the findings of the second global survey on eHealth”. World Health Organization, Geneve; 2010.